Truth Magazine

By Jerry Parks

Did you know that the Bible says absolutely nothing about shoplifting? But the Bible has much to say about thieves, -stealing, dishonesty, greed, selfishness, extortion, deception, covetousness and crime; principles which need to be taken into consideration when discussing our modern day term “shoplifting”. It is a crime punishable by law as well as a sin in the sight of God. Such a person is a thief. He or she is stealing, dishonest, greedy, covetous and selfish. Such a person is engaging in deception and extortion. This being the case, it is easy to see how an article on the subject of’ shoplifting fits into the general theme of morality.

I doubt if many of us realize the seriousness of this problem. Shoplifting is a serious problem from many standpoints. It is a social problem, it is an economic problem, but far more important, it is a spiritual problem. The Bible condemns stealing in no uncertain terms and those who do so are going to be lost if they do not repent and turn in obedience to God’s will.

To show you the relevance and reality of this matter, let me quote a few statistics. U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 28, 1977 says the following:

“Merchants this yuletide are bracing for a wave of shoplifting and employee theft that could easily exceed 1 billion dollars.

About 500 million dollars will be lost to light-fingered shoppers and another 600 million to pilfering employees this year, according to Gordon Williams of the National Retail Merchants Association. The total will be swollen by another 400 million spent by merchants on loss prevention.”

Time Magazine, Dec. 12, 1977 is an article entitled “There are 18 shoplifting Days till Christmas” also reports some interesting statistics:

“Shoppers who neglect to pay for their merchandise are criminals for all seasons, and their numbers are increasing at an alarming rate. The FBI reports more than 600,000 shoplifting arrests across the nation last year, nearly three times as many as in 1970, and the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates merchants’ losses from thefts in 1976 at some $8 billion.

You may have noticed that these statistics I have quoted are not the most current. If the losses are estimated at $8 billion for 1976, think what they must be for this past year! Let me also hasten to point out that the problem is not simply restricted to the poor or lower class Americans. It is to be found in every class of our society.

Why Are So Many Involved In This Crime?

This is an interesting question and deserves our attention. I believe there are a number of reasons why people decide to shoplift. Many from a psychological point of view, I would be totally unqualified to deal with. I am afraid, however, that many are too quick to label everyone who engages in this criminal pastime as simply being “psychologically maladjusted”.

A lady wrote to Ann Landers once, complaining about her husband bringing things home from work that did not belong to him. Ann replied by saying that she should take him to a psychiatrist because he was “sick”. They used to call such a one a ferry thief. Certainly there are some who are psychologically maladjusted, and a psychiatrist probably could help; but let us not forget that most of those who engage in such action are simply thieves and need to be identified as such.

But why are so many involved in this crime? Permit me to list a few of the more obvious reasons:

1. The tendency to rationalize: Those whom I have talked to about why they shoplifted, generally say, “The prices are too high”, or “The stores are trying to rip us off so why not?” or “Everyone else is doing it.” In other words, they are simply rationalizing their conduct. They are trying to convince themselves and others that there is nothing wrong with such conduct. Of course no amount of rationalizing will make something right that is inherently wrong to begin with. Stealing in any way, shape or form is wrong. It is sinful, and no amount of rationalizing will make it right. It was condemned in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. One of the ten commandments simply stated “Thou shalt not steal.” (Ex. 20:15). Jesus endorsed this commandment in Matt. 19:18, as did the apostle Paul in Rom. 13:9. Rationalizing will not remove or erase these verses from the Bible.

Such rationalizing begins early in life. Children will take money from Mother’s purse thinking, “She doesn’t need it,” or “She has so much she won’t miss this small amount.” Sometimes children will take something from a parent as a means of retaliation because the parent disciplined the child or told the child “no”. Sometimes parents will in a subtle way condone children taking things that do not belong to them. This is often done because parents have guilty feelings about not giving their children as much time and attention as they should. Stealing seems to have a great deal to do with the issue of entitlement- what a person feels is due him. Stealing or shoplifting, to such a one, is’ simply making up for something which is rightfully his, but which was denied because of life’s unfairness. These people say to themselves, “I have this coming to me.”

Usually, the person who steals thinks that, at some point in the past, something that belonged to him was taken away. Thus, the person who steals sees himself as the victim rather than the perpetrator of a theft. Often he feels victory rather than guilt when he has successfully stolen some article from a store.

Sometimes the motivation for such action is based on the fact that the victim is impersonal rather than personal. They wouldn’t think of robbing a man on the street, but if they take something from a big department store and get away with it, they feel they have simply beaten the “system”. All this is rationalizing, it is convoluted thinking and in no way justifies the act of stealing.

2. Covetousness: This word is defined as: “To wish for, especially eagerly; usually, to desire inordinately, or without due regard to the rights of others.” There can be no doubt about it, this describes a shoplifter in every detail. He has an inordinate desire for something and has no consideration for the rights of anybody else.

The Bible also condemns such an attitude. Jesus warned the multitude in Lk. 12:15, “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” Paul described the condition of the Gentiles without the gospel in Rom. 1:29, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness.” A)1 one has to do is glance at a concordance to see the numerous warnings against the sin of covetousness. Shoplifting involves the sin of covetousness.

3. Sense of excitement: Some people will shoplift simply for “kicks”. They feel a sense of excitement from having “put one over” on their victim. Those with this attitude enjoy the risk. They are very much like the gambler who also plays the odds for the sake of the big win and are quite willing to take the risk. Usually, they are aware of the security systems, but feel they are far too smart or clever to be outdone by a store detective or a camera. Many feel that if they are caught, they can get out of it by simply saying “It was a mistake”. Shoplifters are usually quite daring. I heard of one lady who boasted that she had shoplifted a garbage can. An article in the Sept. 1977 issue of Nations Business described as experiment that was conducted in one grocery store trying to find out if people would report a shoplifter if they saw one in action. The store detective walked up to the poultry department and stuffed a turkey under his coat and walked out the door. One person who witnessed the crime, deciding not to be outdone, stuffed one under his coat and also walked out. Daring indeed!

3. Desperation: The reason we might logically attribute to one becoming a shoplifter is in reality very rare. Stealing or shoplifting has very little to do with poverty or the lack of basic necessities. So states Dr. James G. Blakemore, professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. This being the case, it becomes obvious that those who are saying that we can cure the ills of the world. by giving everyone more education and more money, simply do not-have the answer.

What Is The Solution?

We have already quoted from the U.S. News article stating that $400 million was spent last year on loss prevention. Certainly this will help deter some from shoplifting, but this alone is not the answer. There is an interesting article in the Dec. 1978 issue of Family Health dealing with “Mind Manipulation”. The stores under consideration are using soft background music, but it is mixed with the voice of a person softly whispering, “Be honest, do not steal”. The tape rolls on, “I am honest, I will not steal, if I do steal I will get caught and sent to jail.” The message remains basically the same, being repeated some 9000 times every hour. They say that prospective shoplifters walk out of the store scratching their heads wondering why they did not take what they intended. Hmmm! Is that the answer?

Let me suggest another alternative. Let’s take the gospel of Christ to men and women, boys and girls, and see if that doesn’t help. After all, it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The Hebrew writer said it is sharper than any two edged sword (and I might add, any mind manipulating tape recorder). Paul said, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” (Phil. 2:5). Let’s teach people the principles of righteousness contained in the word of God. Let’s teach our young people that sin is real and that the consequences of sin are real. That whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap, (Gal. 6:7). Let’s teach people that truth is not something relative, but that God has an absolute standard of morality. It is reasonable, logical, ethical and equitable. Let’s teach people about the glories of heaven. Certainly that ought to motivate people to want to do right. Let’s teach people what it means to be a Christian. The life of a Christian is satisfying, but not self indulgent. What makes life great, is to have something great to live for, and then to try to influence others to do the same. The Christian will learn to accept the authority of God; to be ruled by God’s will, not self will or man’s will. This is the whole message of the Bible.

Shoplifting, like so many other subjects covered in this series, is simply a symptom. The real problem is basic disregard for right and wrong, and the word of God that shows us the distinction between the two.

Self examination is difficult to practice. Rationalizing our conduct is extremely easy. Do not be deceived to think that stealing can be condoned. We will be judged by God’s word, and the Word forbids such conduct. Parents, do not be deceived by thinking that your children would never do such a thing. Teach them that such is wrong, and why it is wrong.

QUESTIONS

1. Does an action have to be specifically condemned in order to be wrong?
2. Is shoplifting a serious problem in our society?
3. Is there any particular class of people who are prone to be shoplifters?
4. What is the difference between a shoplifter and a thief?
5. Name three reasons why people shoplift.
6. What passages would condemn shoplifting?
7. What solutions have been advanced by those concerned about the problem of shoplifting?
8. What alternative is there to these solutions?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 393-394
June 14, 1979

By Bob Buchanon

The weeping prophet Jeremiah asked, “Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (Lam. 1:12). The Lord’s people and the Lord’s cause was in a sad condition indeed when these touching words were uttered. Jerusalem was sacred to the devout Jew but when the prophet asked this question, many cared but little as to what had happened to their beloved city. The appeal of Jerusalem, not only to her neighbors, but even to the strangers passing by, is such that should excite the compassion even of .those unconnected with her. However, like our Lord’s parable of the good Samaritan, many “passed by on the other side.” The same attitude of indifference, apathy and lack of concern appears to be prevalent in our day relative to such moral issues as abortion.

On January 22, 1973, nine men robed in black ruled on abortion, striking down state laws against it. On that day the Supreme Court ruled that: During the first three months of pregnancy the decision to abort rests solely with the woman and her doctor; during the second three months, the State can regulate the abortion procedure to protect maternal health; during the third three months, when the fetus is viable, the State can regulate or ever prohibit abortion except when it is necessary for the mother’s mental or physical health.(1)

More and more as laws are changed, Christians will have to consider principles in God’s Word to determine right from wrong. This we have done in matters such as liquor, gambling, homosexuality, divorce and the use of drugs; we must now do it with abortion. Although abortion has become legal, it will never become moral. To kill before or after birth is murder.

Startling Statistics

A Roman Catholic Cardinal in pleading for the “Right to Life Amendment,” said: “Every nine days, there are as many deaths by abortion as there were in the entire ten years of the Viet Nam War.”(2)

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former director of New York’s first abortion clinic, is convinced that he supervised the taking of 60,000 lives.(3)

It was stated of Chicago, “One out of every three children conceived will be aborted here this year . . . . An estimated 200 abortions will be performed each day in Chicago.”(4)

In 1974, about 900,000 abortions were performed in the United States. The rate in Russia is about 10 times higher or about ten million abortions per year.(5)

We could continue with statistics, but figures become obsolete about as fast as the ink dries on the paper. These should suffice, however, to show us the growing problem that we face. But how concerned are you? As one brother said: “Humans tend to turn their faces away from unpleasant scenes. It is easy to prefer to stay ignorant on such issues as this. But ignorance will not excuse us, brethren. The information is available. The very land itself cries out that something must be done.”(6)

The Question of Life

The whole abortion debate comes down to one question: When does the life of separate human being begin? This question strikes at the very heart of the issue.

It was George Orwell who pointed out that it is possible to distort language so that words take on the reverse of their actual meaning. As we examine this question, we must beware of pro-abortionist terminology. To the average person, “terminate” does not mean the same as to kill and “fetus” definitely no longer falls on the listening ear as “human” but rather as “non-human glob.”(7) The abortionists may refer to abortion as simply a process of limiting fertility. He may refer to it as killing the cells and tissues of conception.(8) He may even refer to the early stages of development as “potential life.”(9) We must show that this is not merely “potential life,” but it actually is life – human life.

“Termination of pregnancy,” “interruption of pregnancy,” “retroactive contraception” all verbal gymnastics behind which to hide the real message of what is happening. “Induced abortion” is more accurate. “Killing the life within the mother,” “killing the fetus,” or more to the point, “killing the unborn baby” directly face the issue, and are the most honest and preferable terms to use.(10) If you are convinced that this is a human life, call it such. We should speak of “he” or “she,” not “it,” and speak of the “unborn,” “pre-born,” or “developing child” or “baby.” It is easy to get the world to approve killing a “fetus,” but much less so to the killing of an “unborn baby.(11)

Development of the Baby

Basic to the consideration of whether this life within the mother is human or even when this life becomes human must be the presently known scientific facts of the development within the uterus. What are the facts concerning the development of the baby? What do we know?

In the October 1971 term of the Supreme Court, a distinguished group of 220 physicians, professors, and fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology submitted at brief to the Court. In this brief they tried to show how modern science established that the unborn child from the moment of conception is a person and therefore, like the mother, a patient. John M. Langone has summarized this brief. I give here several quotes from this article that pertains to the development of the child from conception through three months:

From conception, when the sperm and egg unite, the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly growing organism.

About seven to nine days after conception, when there are already several hundred cells of the new individual formed, contact with the uterus is made, and implantation and nourishment begin. Blood cells form at 17 days, and a heart as early as 18 days. The heart starts irregular pulsating at 24 days and about a week later smooths into rhythmic contractions.

At about 18 days, the development of the nervous system is under way, the baby’s eyes begin to form at 19 days, and by the 20th day the foundation of the child’s brain, spinal cord and entire nervous system is established.

By the 33rd day, the cerebral cortex (that part of the central nervous system that governs motor activity as well as intellect) may be seen.

By the beginning of the second month, the unborn child looks distinctly human, yet the mother is not aware that she is pregnant.

Brain waves have been noted at 43 days, the heart beats strongly, the stomach produces digestive juices, the liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys are functioning.

After the eighth week, no further original organs will form – everything that is already present will be found in the full-term baby. From this point until adulthood, when full growth is acheived somewhere between 25 and 27 years, the changes in the body will be mainly in dimension.

In the third month, the child becomes very active and by the end of the month kicks his legs, turns his feet, moves his thumbs, bends his wrists, turns his head, frowns, squints and opens his mouth.(12)

In spite of these facts, some people act as though the unborn child is not a human being. They are willing to cut it apart and throw the pieces into the nearest garbage can.

Dr. R.F.R. Gardner, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist, expressed his view that the unborn child was not a human being in these words: “When a spontaneous miscarriage occurs parents may grieve, but we do not feel that we have lost a child. From time to time obstetricians have the distress of delivering a stillborn baby. We may have felt this fetus kick under our examining hands, we may have listened to its heartbeat repeatedly over four months, yet when the tragedy occurs we do not feel, `Here is a child who died,’ but rather, `Here is a fetus which so nearly made it.’ Miscarriages are not buried, are not named ….”(13)

Looking At Scriptures

One can take a concordance and never find where abortion is mentioned specifically by name in either testament. Is it therefore approved by the silence of the Scriptures? Many things are determined to be right or wrong by comparing them with general principles of truth as set forth in God’s Word. I am convinced that there are numerous divine principles that speak to this issue. Let us notice some of them.

In Exodus 21:22-24, we read: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. ” On these verses, some have argued, “If the baby is killed, only a fine is imposed; if the mother is killed, capital punishment is given. Therefore, unborn babies are not persons.” But there is an alternative. The words, “and yet no harm follows, ” may mean the child is miscarried, but does not die. The expression, “if any harm follows” means that if either the child, the mother, or both die, then the guilty party is to be capitally punished. “If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him . . . . A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life.”(14)

Job asked, “Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?” (Job 3:11). He could not “give up” what he did not have. And yet he argues that had he so died he would have been “at rest with kings and counselors of the earth ” (vs. 13-14). If he had been “as an hidden untimely birth” (miscarriage), he would have been where “the weary be at rest” (vs. 16-17). In the tenth chapter, Job continued by wishing he had “given up the ghost, and no eye had seen (him) “. But again, one cannot give up what he does not have. He would have been carried from the womb to the grave (Job 10:18-19).

While Jacob and Esau were in Rebekah’s womb, they were living children. Genesis 25:22 says that “the children struggled together within her. ” Notice that they were called “children” while they were still in the mother’s womb. This clear language shows that the life in the body of a woman is a child; it is a human being. From the time of fertilization until death, one is always a human being.

Whether in the womb or in the crib, the child is dependent. Before delivery and after delivery, he is an innocent, dependent human being.(15)

The Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. God spoke to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:5). The Psalmist considered the Lord watched over his development in his mother’s womb (Psa. 139:13-16). Already there was a plan for his life.

Unborn John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb when the expecting mother of our Lord greeted Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41, 44). The term used to describe the baby in the womb (Greek, brephos) is used interchangeably for “babes” before and after birth (see Lk. 2:12, 16; 18:15; Acts 7:19). The word “denotes an unborn child, . . . a newborn child, or an infant still older.”(16) Elizabeth was inspired by the Spirit to correctly interpret this fetal movement.

God’s Word has always taught “Thou shalt not kill” (Rom. 13:9). The literal translation is “Thou shalt do no murder.” Murder is the deliberate taking of innocent human life without just cause. Abortion is planned intentional killing of a human life. So far as I can determine, abortion is nothing more that licensed murder!

Sexual Immorality

Since abortions are now available to all minor daughters without parental advice or consent (Supreme Court decision, July 1, 1976) much of the “fear of pregnancy” that used to prevent a significant amount of teenage sexual immorality has been removed. The result has been an alarming increase in teenage pregnancies. Many areas are already experiencing more abortions than live births. According to a recent report, 3 out of 10 babies born in the U.S. are illegitimate.(17)

What Can We Do?

The most constructive thing we can do is continue to instruct our young people in true moral values and Christian principles, including wholesome sex education. Many abortions are the result of conception due to fornication or adultery. Paul simply states, “Flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18). This will avoid many abortions.

Let us be ready, however, to lend a helping hand to scared girls who find themselves pregnant out of wedlock. Other alternatives besides abortion are open to them. Certainly, adoption should be preferred over abortion. I would be one of the first on the list willing to adopt the child.

Conclusion

Yes, abortion is the killing of human life. It is wrong; it is immoral. Those guilty of murder are included in the list of those who “shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8). Let us, as God’s children, rise up in holy indignation and drive this evil and sin from our midst. Let us take up the Sword of the Lord and dare to dream the impossible dream that some way, some how, some day we might win our noble fight to save the innocent babes whose lives are today in jeopardy.

QUESTIONS

1. List some words used by pro-abortionists which redefine the issues relative to abortion.
2. Describe the development of the baby in the mother’s womb, month by month. (If possible, have someone to prepare pictures from outside sources for in-class presentation.)
3. Give scriptural evidence that the unborn, developing baby has life.
4. Compare David’s murder of Uriah in his attempt to hide his adultery with Bathsheba with what happens when abortion is used to cover fornication (2 Sam. 11).
5. What effect does the United States Supreme Court’s decision that the “fetus” is not a person have on the moral issues of abortion?
6. How would you answer a woman who wanted an abortion who argued as follows: “It is my body and I will do what I want to with it”?
7. Is there any moral difference between abortion, euthanasia, or what the Nazis did to the Jews in World War II?

Endnotes:

1. U.S. News and World Report, March 4, 1974, p. 44.

2. CBS T.V. News, March 7, 1974.

3. Charles and Bonnie Remsberg, “Second Thoughts On Abortion From The Doctor Who Led The Crusade For It,” Good Housekeeping, March, 1976, p. 132.

4. The Daily News, Feb. 28, 1973.

5. “Abortion Routine For Women In Soviet Union,” The Houston Chronicle, October 21, 1976.

6. John Waddey, “Abortion In The Light Of God’s Law,” Living Soberly, Righteously And Godly (Lectureship of the East Tennessee School of Preaching and Mission, Knoxville, 1977), p. 28.

7. Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Handbook On Abortion (Cincinnati, 1975), p. 197.

8. C. Everett Koop, The Right To Live; The Right To Die (Wheaton, 1976), p. 31.

9. Kenneth A. Lee, “Does The Fetus Have Any Rights?” Christianity Applied, November, 1974, p. 15.

10. Willke, op. cit., p. 198.

11. Ibid.

12. “Abortion: The Medical Evidence Against,” As quoted by Clifford Bajema, Abortion And The Meaning of Personhood (Baker, Grand Rapids), pp. 25-27.

13. R.F.R. Gardner, Abortion: The Personal Dilemma (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 126.

14. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary On The Old Testament, The Pentateuch, Vol. ll (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1971), pp. 134-135.

15. Bob Felker, “Abortion Is Murder,” Gospel Anchor, Vol. 3, p. 282. 16.

16.

17. The Montgomery Advertiser, September 24, 1978, as quoted by Ray Dutton, “The Abortion Crisis,” Christian Family, December 1978, p. 7.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 389-392
June 14, 1979

By S. Leonard Tyler

Dishonesty is distasteful, despicable, detested and even hated by most people but lies., at least dormant,.if not digging, within the secrets of every man’s heart. Is it not characteristic of most of us to shift, squirm, imply,, by, pass, overlook, shun. or out-right lie about certain acts, duties, feelings or intentions? Would you not classify such as dishonest? This should impress us with the pertinence of our study. Behold, dishonesty may well lie smoldering within your own heart ready to flame-up and destroy. Dishonesty as any impurity does not dictate every thought and act, but along life’s way somewhere it sends forth its venom and the work is started.

What Is Dishonesty?

“Dishonest implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). “The reverse of honesty; lack of probity or integrity; disposition to lie, cheat, or steal; fraud or thefts; a dishonest act” (The New Century Dictionary). W.E. Vine in his New Testament Words gives, “Dishonesty; aischune . . ., shame, so the R.V. in 2 Cor. 4:2 (for A.V., `dishonesty’), is elsewhere rendered `shame,’ Luke 14:9; Phil. 3:19; Heb. 12:2; Jude 13; Rev. 3:18” (p. 318).

Dishonesty, to me, is an attitude or disposition of self-centeredness, exaltation of one’s own wisdom, pleasure, desire, judgment, imagination and ambitions as the standard for life without due consideration or appreciation otherwise for right or wrong, good or evil. It is an attitude without regard to right principles or even truth itself. Oh yes, the degree of pressure or environmental circumstances determine whatever consideration is given but not what is right or wrong, good or evil. Morton Hunt wrote an article entitled, “How Honest Are You?” which appeared in Ladies Home Journal (Vol. XCVI, No. 5, May 1979); I wish all could and would read it. He deals with the practical, general and practiced concept of honesty. He also raises many challenging and staggering questions as well as giving some alarming statistics. He well establishes our point of view as to the general guilt, destructive consequences and prevalent need for some cure of dishonesty.

Too many pick up towels, linens, etc. out of motels, cram expense accounts, pick up little things in stores, forget income or overload the deductibles on tax returns, add to damaged cars in accidents- to save the $100:00 deductible, not mentioning “not at home”‘responses when certain people appear at the door or when the phone rings. In these, we need to watch out lest we teach our children to lie. Some lie in order to climb a little higher on the social ladder (what about in business, politics, doctors’ placebo pills?). Others manifest just plain pretentious false action, and on and on we could go. Our society has certainly become dishonest.

Honesty And Dishonesty Are Opposites

The wise approach to out study, it seems to me, is to look at the positive side, honesty. Since dishonesty is the opposite of honesty, one should settle his own mind as to honesty. Opposites.’ are’ not definitions but antonyms contrary in tendency or character or meaning. A definition is “a statement of the essential nature of anything; a formal statement of the meaning or signification of a word, phrase, etc.” (The New Century Dictionary). What. is it to be honest or dishonest?

0 . Thayer in his Greek-English. Lexicon Of The New Testament (p, 322) gives, “Kalos (prob. primarily `sound,’ `hale,’ `whole;’) . . . beautiful applied by the ,Greeks to everything so distinguished in form, excellence, goodness, usefulness, . . ” and gives “(c) beautiful by reason of purity or heart and life, and hence praiseworthy, morally good, noble . . . .” W. E. Vine in his New Testament Word Study under Honest, lists “Semnos” in Phil. 4:8 translated in A.V. “honest” and “Euschemonos” as rendered “honestly” in Rom. 13:13; 1 Thess. 4:12.

Therefore, an honest heart is open and receptive to truth and right and will, to the extent of its ability, properly appropriate all the knowledge with genuine sincerity to ascertain and accept the right conclusions. It is uncontaminated with selfish, prejudicial opinions or calloused biases and earnestly seeks to find and walk in the right ways of life.

An honest heart can be ignorantly wrong but can never knowingly continue in the wrong. An honest or dishonest heart is characterized by attitude – not knowledge, accomplishment not right or wrong. An honest heart acts upon and within the bounds of the knowledge possessed with sincerity and confidence that such action is good and right. The understanding may be faulty but in ignorance one acts honestly. This is following one’s conscience. What one feels or thinks, according to his knowledge, is proper and right must dictate his action, if he is honest. However, his doing such does not make it right. “What makes right?”, you may ask. The proper standard of established Truth. In spiritual matters, God’s word, the Bible, is that standard of authority (Jn. 12:48; Jn. 3:4; 2 Jn. 9). Let me illustrate.

Paul Is An Example

Paul persecuted Christians; he laid waste the church of our Lord and gave consent to Stephen’s death, but he was honest (Acts 8; 23:1). He thought God wanted him to do exactly what he did, i.e. “many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9-11); notwithstanding, he was wrong. Thinking a thing to be right does not make it right, regardless of how honest one may be. Paul tells his own story in 1 Tim. 1:11-16. He said, “I was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” Ignorance does not justify, excuse or make right any more than unbelief in this statement. However, if and when one acts within the bounds of his own knowledge, thinking that to be right, he acts honestly. But remember, when one learns truth, honesty demands that he accept it. Paul did that with readiness of mind and heart and fully committed himself to Jesus Christ and, whom He once ignorantly persecuted, he now lovingly and faithfully proclaimed as both Lord and Christ (Gal. 1:13-24).

God’s truth establishes what is right spiritually (2 Pet. 1:3). Jesus told those who would abide in His word, “Then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jnp. 8:31-32). Paul was honest and gladly gave up all things “for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (Acts 22:16; Phil. 3:8).

Felix And Agrippa Examples

Felix with his wife Drusilla heard Paul reason upon “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” Felix trembled, and answered, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:25). He wanted money and the convenient season never came. Dishonesty is deadly and unending.

Agrippa with Bernice, in great pomp, heard Paul’s appeal and responded, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). His heart was not open to truth and he declined the Lord’s invitation. Paul pleaded, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds,” to no avail.

The Parable Of The Sower

Jesus explains the parable of the sower who sowed seed upon different kinds of ground. (1) The wayside hearts hear but make no pretentions to obey. The Devil comes and snatches the word out of the heart. (2) The rocky ground hearts hear and receive the word with joy but lacking of root depth, fell away (dishonesty reigned). (3) The thorny ground hearts receive and go forth to be choked out with cares, riches and pleasures of this life. These seek self-fulfilment of fleshly desires and the word is cast aside. They loved unrighteous more than the righteousness of God (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The good ground hearts, “the honest and good heart,” receive (believe and obey) and produced fruit with patience. These are the people who with open eyes, ears and hearts hear the voice of the Lord with understanding and their lives were changed. They are the converted because they received the word of the Lord (Matt. 13:18-23; Luke 8:11-15; Luke 6:46; James 1:21-25).

Dishonesty Within The Ranks Of The Believers

Ananias and Sapphira planned together to deceive in the gift of their possessions. Peter asked, “Why hath Satan filled throe heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” (Acts 5:1-11). Here is demonstrated God’s disposition toward dishonesty. We might well take notice and beware of the consequences. These fell dead.

Simon the sorcerer thought he could buy the power of God with money. Peter told him that his heart was not right with God. He responded to the reproval and asked for their prayers (Acts 8:13-24). These cases are relevant to our time of prosperity and ability to give liberally and cheerfully without pretentious cravings or deceitful ambitions. Christians are to purpose in their hearts and give according to prosperity. What kind of hearts do we have?

All hypocritical action is dishonesty. “Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth” (Eph. 4:29). Gossipers, evil speakers, tattlers or any bitter, wrath and anger prompted clamor is dishonesty at work, but “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Eph. 4:25-32; Col. 3:8-9; 1 Pet. 2:; Matt. 12:34). Dishonesty is too often manifested in repeated stories.

Dishonesty Among Elders, Deacons, Preachers, And Teachers

Paul told the elders of Ephesus that after his departure grievous wolves would enter not sparing the flock, “also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). False doctrine is just as damnable when taught by an elder as by a grievous wolf. It is not who teaches but what is taught. No one has the prerogative to speak for the Lord. His word is revealed. “If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

John complimented the Ephesians for trying certain false apostles and finding them liars (Rev. 2:2). He also branded Diotrephes with dishonesty because he was seeking the preeminence and “prating against us with malicious words” and would not receive faithful evangelists nor even allow others to receive them without casting them out of the church (3 John 9-10).

Peter and Jude portray so vividly dishonest teachers. Peter impresses us by saying, “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,” and even deny the Lord. Jude identifies “certain men crept in unawares . . . ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness .. . . walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage” (2 Pet. 2; Jude). These were ungodly and dishonest but were teaching with great swelling words. Jesus says, “All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mk. 7:23).

Dishonesty is a condition of heart and must be guarded against all the days of one’s life. Dishonesty will destroy one’s character, steal his integrity, and strip him of all worthy confidence and trust. It is truly a destroying attitude and a terrible condition of heart and will ultimately destroy the soul. No wonder Solomon said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Jesus said, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Matt. 12:34-35). Keep thine ownself honest before God.

QUESTIONS

1. Define dishonesty.
2. Cite some examples of dishonesty which might appear insignificant to the world or even to some who profess to be Christians.
3. What makes the difference between an honest heart and a dishonest heart.
4. Does the Bible give any examples of those who were honest and sincere but wrong?
5. What was God’s attitude toward those who had obeyed the gospel and disobeyed by being dishonest in some form?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 386-389
June 14, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

During the week of April 16-20, Mike Willis met Mr. Eddie K. Garrett in a debate. Mr. Garrett is a Primitive Baptist. The debate concerned unconditional election and limited atonement.

The Disputants

Mike Willis, Editor of Truth Magazine, is a young gospel preacher. This was his first formal debate. Frankly, I was a little concerned about Mike’s lack of debate experience, but my fears were quickly dispelled. Mike was totally prepared. He had volumes of notes and charts which he used with devastating effect. Brother Willis is a sharp, incisive thinker on his feet. This is absolutely essential in debate. One might think that this is simply another “we whipped the sox off them” report and review, but if you think so, secure a copy of the debate tapes and see for yourself. Mike was fair and courteous, a gentleman at all times, as was Mr. Garrett.

Eddie K. Garrett is a wily veteran in debate. He has had approximately 25 debates. He is kind and gracious. However, his doctrine was no match for the truth of God. Garrett is unusual in that he generally attempts to give answers to questions that are put to him. He does not fulfill his ditty as a negative speaker. He ignored, by actual count, 80% of Brother Willis’s affirmative material. This is typical of denominational debaters.

The Audience

The Primitive Baptist building was packed nearly to capacity every night. Chairs had to be set out the last night. The audience was exceedingly well behaved. A good spirit prevailed. At least a dozen or more gospel preachers attended during the debate. Christians out numbered the Baptists three to one. Primitive Baptists came from as far away as Cincinnati and one Missionary Baptist preacher attended the last two nights. The old, worn out objection against debates because they “gender strife” was again put to rest. There were no ugly, unkind incidents.

The Debate

I will not attempt to debate the debate. There were several points of interest, though, that it might be well to discuss. Mr. Garrett is a Calvinist. He believes that God elected certain ones to salvation without regard or respect to conditions and that Christ died only for these elect ones. He says he does not believe in unconditional reprobation, but one of the high points of the debate was Brother Willis’s ability to show that this is precisely what Mr. Garrett must believe. In Rom. 9:13, Mr. Garrett argued that “Jacob have I loved” referred to God’s unconditional election of Jacob to salvation. Mike clearly showed that “Esau have I hated” must mean that God unconditionally damned Esau. Further in Romans 9, Mr. Garrett contended that “vessels of mercy . . . afore prepared unto glory” meant that God had unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation. Mike showed that the parallel expression, “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” must mean that Gc)d unconditionally elected certain ones to eternal damnation. If not, why not? Mr. Garrett made no attempt to escape the obvious force of this conclusion. He denied that he believed it, but all could see the consequence of his position.

In reply to a question, Garrett said, “God does not desire to save every one.” Willis charted the statement from 1 Tim. 2:4 and the one from 2 Pet. 3:9 to the effect that God “will have all men to be saved,” and that He (God) “is not willing that any should perish.” Mike pressed the point time after time. Garrett made no response. He simply continued to say that God does not will to save every one.

In response to a question, Mr. Garrett said that Primitive Baptists do not teach their children the song, “Jesus Loves Me.” We knew they could not and be consistent with their doctrine, so I wrote a parallel, Primitive Baptist version entitled, “Jesus Hates Me.” Below is the chart of the two songs:

How Do You Know Which Song You Should Be Teaching Your Children?

Jesus Loves Me (To Be Sung To Elect Children)	Jesus Hates Me   (To Be Sung To Non-Elect Children)
Jesus loves me! This I know,   For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to Him belong, They are weak, but He is strong.	Jesus hates me, this I fear   From the Calvinists, this I hear Non-elect ones don’t belong, They are weak, but He is strong.
Jesus loves me when I’m good,   When I do the things I should, Jesus loves me when I’m bad, But it makes him very sad.	Jesus hates me when I’m good,   When I do the things I should, Jesus hates me when I’m bad, But it makes him very glad.
Jesus loves me! He who died,   Heaven’s gates to open wide; He will wash away my sin, Let His little child come in.	Jesus hates me! He who died,   Hell’s gates are open wide; He will damn me for Adam’s sin, Let his non-elect come in.
Jesus loves me! Loves me still,   Tho I’m very weak and ill; From the shining throne on high, Comes to watch me where I lie.	Jesus hates me! Hates me still,   Tho I’m very weak and ill; From His shining throne on high, Comes to watch me while I die.
Yes, Jesus loves me,   Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves me, The Bible tells me so.	Yes, Jesus hates me,   Yes, Jesus hates me, Yes, Jesus hates me, Eddie K. Garrett tells me so!

 

Now, if any Primitive Baptists want to use this in conjunction with their doctrine, that will be fine with me. I would like to have some royalty money from it, but I will waive that just so it can be included in Primitive Baptist songbooks.

Mr. Garrett said he could sing, “Amazing Grace.” He read the first verse of that great and grand old song: “Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now I’m found, was blind, but now I see.” So, I went back into the song writing business for Primitive Baptist churches, and Mike read a parallel which is consistent with the doctrine of unconditional election: “Limited grace how sour the sound that ignored a wretch like me! I once was lost, and I still am, was blind, and still can’t see.”

Mr. Garrett called us “Campbellites,” “blind Pharisees,” and said we were “mixed up in the head.” He spoke of “hook-nosed, pot bellied Jews,” and used other equally complimentary terms. Some of our brethren who are a little squeamish about “indelicate” language ought to “write up” Mr. Garrett, Mike did not retaliate in this manner. He was strong and his scriptural arguments struck with great force. For this, some few might wish to condemn him, while they ignore the “sweet” words of Mr. Garrett.

Mr. Garrett appealed to prejudice. Again, this is par for the course with denominational debaters. He talked about how Mike’s position sent sweet, old Methodist grandmothers to hell. He said that Mike’s doctrine would condemn all Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, American Indians before Columbus, people during the dark ages, etc. He said that what Willis preached would “split hell wide open.” Mike’s response was to the Bible. He cited John 8:24, Hebrews 11:6, and Mark 16:16. Mr. Garrett said that idolaters would be saved because their worship indicated that they feared God. He said that infidel Jews and Indians who worshipped “black stumps” would be saved. Mike cited 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 and Gal. 5:19-21, along with the verses cited just above. Further, Mike showed that according to Calvinism, most of those people that Garrett was so worried about were probably not elected anyway. No matter how the Methodist grandmother lived, no matter how sweet she was, she would be lost because God hated her and did not elect her! It was not a pretty picture, but Brother Willis painted it in all its stark reality. It was a vivid contrast to the doctrine of the Lord to which Mike appealed.

Conclusion

Much more could be said, but enough. Ron Halbrook, Morris Hafley and Gary Kerr assisted in the debate. Gary was especially helpful with his handling of the charts. Even Mr. Garrett commended his splendid ability.

The debate exposed many to truth and error for the first time on a visible plane. Brother Willis was a living embodiment of 2 Cor. 10:3-5. More plain, pungent, penetrating preaching such as he did in the debate is needed. It is our prayerful hope that some will see, believe and obey the truth as a result of the teaching done in the debate.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 378-379
June 7, 1979